Re: a right to privacy is not in the DFSG, therfore you don't have one

[Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>]

On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 08:03:16PM +0000, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 08:50:42PM +0000, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> 
> [ I do love the way you just snipped the rhetoric I was following up
>   to... ]

That's nice.  It's an old quote, and people can follow back the thread
if they need to go that far.  Quotes aren't supposed to give a full
history of the discussion; they just give a quick reminder of what's
being replied to.

> >So you're saying that the DFSG doesn't allow Debian to consider "capture
> >a bear to modify or redistribute this work" non-free, since it's not
> 
> OK, you can pick a deilberately ridiculous example. Well done. The

No, I can pick an obviously, clearly non-free example that's also
obviously not mentioned explicitly in the DFSG.  If your argument fails
on that case, it's wrong in the general case.  That's the purpose of
extreme examples.  You want Debian to have to have a GR to add "freedom
to not capture wildlife" to the DFSG before it can deem this restriction
non-free.

> FFS, that's not what I was saying. You need to be a DD to propose or
> vote on updates to the DFSG. You're clearly not a DD (nor in the NM
> queue), therefore you couldn't do either. You could change that if you
> cared sufficiently...

I'm not proposing any changes to the DFSG here, since the DFSG already
says that a free license can not impose arbitrary, onerous restrictions
to modification and distribution.  That's been Debian's interpretation
for a long time.  You're the one that's claiming that Debian needs to
hold a vote to deem new restrictions non-free (a discussion which we've
had: it would cripple Debian's ability to remain free), not me.

-- 
Glenn Maynard